Evidence of meeting #73 for Health in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was drugs.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Jean-Denis Fréchette  Parliamentary Budget Officer, Library of Parliament
Carleigh Malanik  Financial Analyst, Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer, Library of Parliament
Mostafa Askari  Assistant Parliamentary Budget Officer, Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer, Library of Parliament
Jason Jacques  Senior Director, Costing and Budget Analysis, Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer, Library of Parliament
Mark Mahabir  Director of Policy (Costing) and General Counsel, Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer, Library of Parliament

3:30 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Bill Casey

I call to order meeting number 73 of the Standing Committee on Health. Today we are fortunate to have with us the parliamentary budget officer and several officials from that office.

We welcome Mr. Jean-Denis Fréchette, parliamentary budget officer.

We thank all of you for your assistance on this.

We have with us Mostafa Askari; Carleigh Malanik, financial analyst; Jason Jacques, senior director; and Mark Mahabir, director of policy. Welcome.

My understanding, Mr. Fréchette, is that you are going to start with a short introduction and split your time. The floor is yours.

3:30 p.m.

Jean-Denis Fréchette Parliamentary Budget Officer, Library of Parliament

Thank you, Chair.

Vice-Chairs, members of the committee, thank you for inviting us to discuss the results of our study.

I would also like to thank you for your motion requesting the PBO to conduct a study on the costing of national pharmacare. It was certainly a challenge, but everyone on the team greatly appreciated the opportunity of working on such a study. It has certainly been a highlight among all our projects.

With your authorization, Mr. Chair, I would like to ask my colleague Carleigh Busby Malanik to make a short presentation on the main points of the report.

Thank you, Chair.

October 17th, 2017 / 3:30 p.m.

Carleigh Malanik Financial Analyst, Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer, Library of Parliament

Thank you.

Seeing as how I have under 10 minutes, I'll jump right in.

The first slide we have is on recollection. It was roughly a year ago today that the committee requested that the PBO cost a pharmacare program. It was also the committee that provided to PBO the parameters of that pharmacare program.

Very quickly, I'll note that it was to be universally accessible to all Canadians and have a standardized list of drugs that would be reimbursed, and that list would be equivalent to the drugs listed on Quebec's public drug plan. There would be a $5 copayment for all brand-name drug prescriptions, and there would be a copayment exemption for these that would match what the U.K. currently offers as exemptions.

Consistent with our general practice, we reviewed the literature, reached out to stakeholders in the public and private sector, and received feedback along the way. Once the draft was completed, we had it peer reviewed and incorporated the feedback we received.

I'm very happy to be here today to present the results of this year-long collaboration.

This first slide presents a few things. I'll point your attention to the bolded or dark line at the bottom, where you can see that in 2015-16 Canadians spent roughly $28.5 billion on prescription drugs. This amount excludes any over-the-counter medications, and it excludes any prescriptions that were administered in hospitals. I'll turn your attention to the far bottom right of the slide, which shows that in 2015-16 public plans represented roughly 46% of this total expenditure. The remaining amounts were paid for by private insurers or out of pocket.

I would also like to add at this time that the out-of-pocket expenditures do not include any insurance premiums paid to the insurance providers. They are strictly what was paid for the drug itself.

The drug expenditures include the cost of the medication, any markups from wholesale, and any professional fees that were charged.

Lastly, what this table shows is that, consistent with what previous literature has shown, there is a variation in the level of coverage for pharmaceutical drug insurance across the provinces.

The next two slides speak to the government's role currently in pharmaceutical spending and drug insurance coverage.

Beginning with the federal government, we can see that they have some direct spending for some populations, which is estimated at $645 million in 2015-16. They play a larger role in the regulatory area. They also offer some relief to taxpayers through the tax and transfer system. Also, a larger role is that of funding the provinces through the Canada health transfer and the Canada Health Act.

The next slide speaks to the provincial counterparts. You can see on the chart on the right that their spending on prescribed drugs is an estimated $13.1 billion. That is because they're responsible for the delivery of these services and the funding and financing of them. They also have some control, in that they are responsible for creating the formularies, or the specific drugs that will be reimbursed on their plans, and also for stipulating the eligibility criteria for the populations that would receive coverage.

Before jumping into the pharmacare and the results, I would like to take this time to discuss the scope of this report, particularly the scope of the cost estimate that was included in this report.

To be as specific as I can, it reflects the cost to the federal government for the drug expenditures under a pharmacare plan; that is, it includes the cost of the medication, any markups, and any fees. It does not include things such as any savings or costs resulting from a consolidated administration; any new costs from legislation, regulations, or negotiations; and any other impacts to other sectors. Until PBO is provided with a policy including how this program will be implemented, it is really difficult to get at these additional costs.

The next slide shows an overview of the parameters provided by this committee and marries them with PBO's own assumptions that we've made. As shown on the left of the slide, we have our patients currently consuming drugs at current prices and at current volume. Summed up, this is our $28.5 billion. When we're talking about pharmacare, we're talking about a subset of drugs: just those listed on Quebec's public plan.

This is where PBO begins to make some assumptions: first, since it is a single-payer system, PBO assumed that the federal government would be able to negotiate lower prices for these specific drugs, and second, this plan would operate as current public plans do, in that they impose generic substitution. What it means is that if a patient is consuming a brand-name drug, they would be switched over to the generic, which typically costs less, assuming that it is safe to do so and there is one available.

We have the other parameter provided by this committee: the copayments on brand-name drugs. This would be a source of revenue for the government and would bring down the cost of pharmacare.

Also, as shown at the top of the slide, we also have a PBO assumption, which is that because this pharmacare plan is universally accessible, and because the out-of-pocket costs to patients would be reduced to zero if they're purchasing a generic—or $5 if they're purchasing a brand-name drug—we would see an increase in the volume of drugs consumed.

The next two slides walk you through these results, adding on the assumptions one by one. At the beginning, we have our $28.5 billion currently consumed in 2015-16. When we add on the formulary, we're talking about $24.6 billion. When we add on our next assumption of it being universally accessible, we would see an increase in volume of roughly 12.5%. This assumption was applied to all but a select group of drugs on the formulary. This resulted in an increase in costs of roughly $26.3 billion.

Offsetting this increase, however, is PBO's assumption around the price negotiations the federal government would be able to achieve. This was done in a two-step process. The first was that we assumed the federal government would be able to achieve the lowest price currently observed in Canada. Typically this was the price in Quebec, since that is what Quebec demands of the drug manufacturers. On top of that, PBO assumed that there would be a price discount of 25%. This represents an average savings across the board for all of these drugs on the formulary. In reality, when this is negotiated, this could vary significantly drug by drug or drug class by drug class.

We arrived at this 25% by consultation with the stakeholders and with our peer reviewers, who looked at an estimate of what the pan-Canadian pharmaceutical alliance might currently be achieving through their negotiations, and also in recognizing that Canadians typically spend a lot more on drugs compared to other nations. That 25% represents our average best guess, although we do provide sensitivity analysis in the appendix.

The final assumption to get our gross cost estimate is the generic substitution. That's where we arrive at $20.4 billion. To arrive at the net cost estimate for the federal government, we subtract the copayment revenues, net of any exemptions. As well, we subtract the amount the federal government is currently spending on some subpopulations. It's with this that we arrive at our net cost estimate of $19.3 billion.

I've listed the amounts of the net copayments and the direct expenditures underneath the table, as well as one other number: the markups and fees. There are two reasons why I highlighted this. The first reason is that the $7.4 billion associated with markups and fees is a sizable portion of this gross cost and net cost estimate, but it's also to remind myself to tell you that it's because we didn't make any assumptions about what would happen to these markups and fees. We assumed that the rates would remain as currently observed, but we adjusted them to account for this increase in volume. In reality, this is something that could be adjusted or negotiated.

Turning quickly now to the conclusions of the report, first and foremost, our net cost estimate to the federal government for this pharmacare plan is $19.3 billion. This cost estimate of course is sensitive to the parameters provided, as well as the assumptions the PBO made. We do provide some sensitivity analysis.

Next is that patients' out-of-pocket expenditures are expected to decrease, and we estimate by 90% on average. This of course would vary, depending on what the patient currently pays. Under pharmacare their costs could go to zero—or a 100% decrease—if they're purchasing a generic or to $5 if they're purchasing a brand-name drug.

In general, the results suggest that there could be savings under a single-payer system, as long as the savings can be achieved through the assumptions the PBO has made.

The last slide presents our five-year projection for pharmacare, both the gross cost and the net cost estimates. In 2020-21, PBO estimates that the gross pharmacare cost would increase to $23.7 billion and the net cost to $22.6 billion. Again, these projections are also sensitive to what would be coming down the pipeline, market composition, and future drug prices.

That concludes my presentation.

3:40 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Bill Casey

Thank you very much.

We'll go now to our seven-minute rounds of questions, starting with Mr. Oliver.

3:40 p.m.

Liberal

John Oliver Liberal Oakville, ON

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you very much for preparing an excellent report. It certainly sheds a lot of light on the model, the costing, and the approaches to the model that we've been discussing for some time now here at committee, so thank you very much for that.

I want to summarize to make sure I have this right. In 2015-16, $28.5 billion was spent on prescription medicines outside of hospitals across Canada. Approximately $3.9 billion wouldn't have qualified for coverage under the Quebec model, which, we understand, is a sort of gold-plated model.

Some $4.2 billion would result in efficiencies, savings, and changes in pricing consumption, leaving a net cost to the federal government of $20.4 billion to cover all Canadians. All Canadians would be covered with $20.4 billion, because you've built in those that were not covered.

Then, in the same period of time, 2015-16, the public sector spent $13.1 billion and the private sector spent $10.7 billion—these are employers—so the public and private employers spent $23.8 billion.

Can I safely put those numbers together and say that we need $20.4 billion to cover every Canadian with a national pharmacare model and that $23.8 billion is already in play to cover drug plans? We could actually fully implement a pharmacare model and save employers $3.4 billion at the same time. Have I put all that together correctly?

3:45 p.m.

Financial Analyst, Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer, Library of Parliament

Carleigh Malanik

To answer the first part of your question, yes, you broke down the expenditures and the net cost to the federal government.

We didn't directly provide a comparison of what it would save private payers or public payers, because there are still a lot of moving parts that we weren't able to account for. All I can really say at this point is that if you wanted to cover this list of drugs, it would cost the government $20.4 billion, that public plans are paying $13.1 billion right now, and that the private sector is paying $10.7 billion. It's just a little hard to put together because of all the additional moving parts.

3:45 p.m.

Liberal

John Oliver Liberal Oakville, ON

Do you have reasonable confidence in that private employer number, though?

3:45 p.m.

Mostafa Askari Assistant Parliamentary Budget Officer, Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer, Library of Parliament

I think the point is that on the private expenditures, they cover some of the drugs that are not in the Quebec formulary, so it's hard to know exactly how you can divide those. There will certainly be savings on the part of the private sector, but we haven't really figured out exactly how that will be divided because of the differences in the coverage.

3:45 p.m.

Liberal

John Oliver Liberal Oakville, ON

On the $3.9 billion that was excluded because it was not in the Quebec formulary, would that have been spread pretty equally across both public and private employer populations?

3:45 p.m.

Assistant Parliamentary Budget Officer, Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer, Library of Parliament

Mostafa Askari

I don't think we can say that, really.

3:45 p.m.

Financial Analyst, Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer, Library of Parliament

Carleigh Malanik

No, we didn't actually look at the $3.9 billion. It was only the remaining $20.4 billion.

3:45 p.m.

Liberal

John Oliver Liberal Oakville, ON

Okay.

On those employer costs and the admin fee, there are private insurance companies that administrate these plans for them. I think they typically charge an admin fee of 4% to 5%. In the public and private employer costings, do the costs of the drugs you've covered include the admin fee or just the cost of the pharmaceuticals themselves?

3:45 p.m.

Financial Analyst, Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer, Library of Parliament

Carleigh Malanik

It includes the cost of medication, any markups from wholesale to the distributers, and any pharmacist fees that would be applied. It's not including anything charged to the patients to pay for their insurance.

3:45 p.m.

Liberal

John Oliver Liberal Oakville, ON

But the company itself.... I used to run a hospital. I know that our hospital system had a drug plan. It was administered by a private insurer; I won't mention the name. They would charge a percentage to the employer to administrate the fund for them. They would get a 5% add-on to the cost of the drugs to cover the cost of the plan. In these costings, have you built that in or not?

3:45 p.m.

Financial Analyst, Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer, Library of Parliament

Carleigh Malanik

No, that would not be included in the costing.

3:45 p.m.

Liberal

John Oliver Liberal Oakville, ON

Okay. So there would be a further 3%, 4% or 5% gain for all the public and private employers based on plan administration. That is sitting there not yet quantified.

3:45 p.m.

Financial Analyst, Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer, Library of Parliament

Carleigh Malanik

Yes. An additional insurance premium is paid by patients.

3:45 p.m.

Liberal

John Oliver Liberal Oakville, ON

Okay. Thank you.

In terms of the value, I think you said that pricing would be reduced by about 25% across the board in terms of one of the efficiencies of moving to a national plan, but I noted that the U.S. Veterans Health Administration pays about 50% less than the Canadian public plans pay for generic drugs, and about 40% less than the current Canadian list brands for brand-name drugs.

In terms of that 25%, it looks like another big bulk buying group, smaller even than what Canada would have, with regard to the VA, can get better than 25%. You were just being conservative with that? Or did you have another reason for that 25%?

3:50 p.m.

Parliamentary Budget Officer, Library of Parliament

3:50 p.m.

Financial Analyst, Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer, Library of Parliament

Carleigh Malanik

As Jean-Denis said, we're prudent. It reflects our best guess. No one seems to really know where we could land, and 25% seemed to be an agreeable number when we reached out to stakeholders. Again, we do go up to 30% in our sensitivity analysis. I think it's very easy to assume as well that if the savings were to be even greater, you can do that calculation quite simply and see where you would arrive.

3:50 p.m.

Liberal

John Oliver Liberal Oakville, ON

To go back to the employers, I know that we didn't ask you in your pricing, but in looking at the private sector employers, did you have any sense of the size of these firms? Were they mostly businesses with 50 or more employees? In my riding, most small businesses with one or two employees don't often provide drug coverage. Do you have any sense of the scale of the private sector firms that are providing drug coverage?

3:50 p.m.

Financial Analyst, Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer, Library of Parliament

Carleigh Malanik

No, unfortunately not. The only statistics that we looked at and were able to provide are listed in the report. Generally, if you were going to pay a copayment or have co-insurance and things like that, we didn't really get into the scale of these programs.

3:50 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Bill Casey

Okay. We're moving to Mr. Webber.

3:50 p.m.

Conservative

Len Webber Conservative Calgary Confederation, AB

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I appreciate the hard work and time that has gone into this costing study. I am curious to know how accurate the PBO cost forecasts have turned out to be in the past.

Can you give examples of costing projections that you have done and give me your best and worst results, preferably as a percentage of error? What is the PBO track record on costing projections? How accurate and how inaccurate has the PBO been in the past?

3:50 p.m.

Parliamentary Budget Officer, Library of Parliament

Jean-Denis Fréchette

That's a good question.

I'm looking at my senior director of costing right now. I don't think we did that kind of accuracy measure.